128:
the rebel leader was left-handed" rather than coordinating a shared definition like us poor
Knowledge editors. The end of the Cold War situation is quite humorous in that it is quite clear from recent scholarship that the Cold War resulted in a dramatic drop in the number of civil wars over the next decade or so. Nevertheless, many war scholars at the end of the Cold War, who apparently had been entirely focused on superpower conflict and now needed to find something else to do to earn a salary, had missed the steady buildup of ongoing civil wars over the previous decades and published widely disseminated and quoted works concluding that the end of the Cold War had caused the abnormally large number of observed civil wars. The more difficult argument is the one that Hironaka suggest by measuring explicit correlation between superpower/communist involvement and increased length. I'll see what I can dig up and add. -
155:
scholarly work took the shape of a study of a particular civil war and all of its peculiarities that made it different from every other war. The major problem with the sort of statistical studies that these "ecology" studies rely on is the lack of data once you get back into even the beginning of the 20th century, e.g. demographics from census takers of the size of ethnic minority groups, accurate measures of miles of railroad track per capita (used as a proxy for government strength), etc. Several of the measures that
Hironaka used for post-WWII wars simply aren't available for the earlier wars she discusses, and are omitted. Nevertheless, I'm sure someone has taken a stab at it and I'll see what I can find. -
109:", which is generally how the two broad schools of civil war scholarship divide. The Collier-Hoeffler model, considered a massive assault by the "greed" school, has certainly been the focus of much of the debate, with many of the "grievance" folks reduced to the rearguard action of insisting that identity issues form the basis of civil wars but are too complicated to be measured by statistics. (I've actually read wider than the sources I used, but found these to have the most explanatory power, so I guess the minor role grievance explanation play in this article is my POV.) -
470:
would sign on, and
Hironaka spends a long time pointing out that the whole idea that all of the ex-colonial states are the same structurally as the older states is absurd. That said, even in a collapsed state like Somalia, there are still centers of power that claim that they are legitimate. (Tangentially, one could imagine that the 'autonomous regions' described in
273:
I notice more recent editors tends to share this view. I see redlinks as invitations, and an article without redlinks to be rather melancholic, as there's no avenue for sudden expansion into new related topics. I have and continue to strongly defend that redlink, in the expectation that either I or
127:
All good points. I will try to cast my net wider. There actually doesn't appear to be a lot of disagreement on a the number cutoff, probably because scholars can simply preface their work with "I'm using the 1000 casualties total criterion" or "I'm only counting 100 casualty per year conflicts where
82:
That's actually one of the few sections that largely survived after I got my grubby paws on the article. There were no academic definitions previously. I've put the academics first, cut down the other definitions and put them under "further definitions". On a second look, I couldn't figure out why
170:
Otherwise, the article is generally well-written and clear. The statistics are incorporated in a pretty readable way. I think you might go into too much detail at some points, but that's the kind of thing that comes from researching a wider variety of sources. They'll quickly show you what the major
339:
25 out of the 41 inline citations refer to
Hironoka, and another 9 point towards Collier, Hoeffler and Sambanis, while one inline citation points to both of them, bringing the total to 35/41 inline citations being attributed to two sources. However, in your bibliography, there are far more sources,
37:
I have been expanding this article, off and on, for the past couple months using books on my shelf and no longer have any bright ideas on what to add. Given the extremely general nature of the topic, I have relied heavily on statistical studies, which are not usually considered gripping reading. I
469:
on
Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts mentions "the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces", while Hironaka's definition, which I've used in the lede, requires the state as a belligerent. However, the Geneva Conventions were written for states that
347:
I started working on the article, though there's little evidence that the sources listed were actually used in the article. I have a feeling someone just copied a bibliography from somewhere. One of the recurring critiques I'm hearing is about the lack of diversity in sources and I'll certainly
55:
Kudos for taking on a difficult but important topic. I encounter a lot of similar challenges when I try to do the same thing with abstract topics in video games. (Much easier to focus on a specific civil war, isn't it?) So when I put out these comments, I just want to let you know that I'm really
445:
No, the
Collier-Hoeffler model changed the way people approached the subject because nobody seems to have done a massive statistical study to examine the causes of civil wars before. As such, there are many many scholars who have built on the C-H framework to refine or modify its conclusions.
123:
Even the other sections, for such an important topic, you could draw on a wider number of sources. I'm almost 100% sure that academics debate what is or isn't a civil war, and I'd really like to know where the debate usually ends up. I imagine there's less room for POV in merely summarizing the
97:
In the "causes" section, you put a LOT of weight onto
Collier, Hoeffler and Sambanis. Even if they're pretty reliable themselves, I don't think this will be enough to provide a comprehensive look at the causes. You could really use a wider number of sources to either confirm or criticize these
154:
Yeah, the argument over if pre-nationalism states can be credibly compared with modern states been a major problem in political science, not just with this field of study. Also academics have only recently begun looking at the "ecology" of civil wars and how they are similar; previously most
38:
would appreciate, in particular, constructive criticism on if I've managed to discuss the statistics in a readable way and suggestions on what else people want to know about this type of war, though people are of course free to comment on anything they wish. Thanks,
78:
In the definition section you jump right into what the Geneva
Conventions say. There's no context. The academic definitions should probably come first. And you'll probably need a suitable heading for the other definitions: (policy definitions? legal definitions?)
124:
timing of several civil wars. But even here, there's some potentially controversial ideas when it comes to correlating civil wars with the cold war -- and it might help to have other sources confirm or elaborate on these ideas.
142:
I might like to know more about civil wars before the 19th century. (Or, if these wars weren't generally called civil wars, it would be important to clarify why. I'm not a historian, but if they generally don't classify the
478:, whose definition I use to lead off the definition section, doesn't mention a state at all, which may be more intuitive for people, as several people have tried to change the lead to make it more general.
105:
That's very true. Hopefully I, or someone else, will get around to the one redlink I insist on keeping in the article (despite attempts to at least one editor to 'fix' the redlink by delinking it), "
189:
Thank you for your comments. It'll take me a while to work on your suggestions but I hope you'll have a chance to go back over the article when I feel it's ready for another round of review. -
62:
I wouldn't say "take on" so much as "sleepwalk into", but thanks for the comments. And yes, it's far far easier to write about a specific actual conflict than about a class of conflict. -
205:, but before I ended up there I used to poke in and around some historical and political articles. Feel free to seek me out directly whenever you're ready for the next round of review.
450:
is both fundamentally different from and worse than other types of conflict, have been busy trying to blow holes in the C-H model or find proxy measures that would prove their point
440:
231:
Wait, I thought the whole point of
Knowledge was to provide a forum for people to complain about every possible topic. Oh yeah, and also something to do with an encyclopedia. ;) -
488:
422:
370:
330:
296:
403:
355:
315:
257:
162:
135:
116:
281:
90:
214:
196:
305:
All the pictures line up on the right-hand of the page, making it seem visually unbalanced. Some of them could probably be moved to the left hand side without a problem.
83:
the article needed an indepth discussion of things that were not but are related to civil war, and might just end up cutting that entire "further" section later. -
459:
243:
But of course, why else do we so many articles with criticism sections? And all those edit wars, and talk pages to argue on. In fact, one of our core policies,
485:
471:
400:
352:
312:
278:
235:
193:
159:
132:
113:
87:
66:
42:
390:
238:
21:
69:
45:
482:
397:
349:
309:
275:
232:
190:
183:
156:
129:
110:
84:
63:
39:
17:
474:
would have been relatively quickly seen as legitimate states in an international system like that of 18th century Europe.)
360:
That would explain it. It would be unusual for someone to leave the task half-done, with all of those sources available. --
418:
386:
366:
326:
292:
253:
446:
Alternately, those who hold that grievance better explains the cause of civil wars, in particular those who hold that
286:
Okay, seems reasonable. It just really stands out. But hey, if that results in a new article, everyone wins. --
98:
viewpoints. Your goal should be to get away from attribution to any one single source, and instead achieve a
244:
462:
as well. In any case, this points to the need for more sources so readers can see the back and forth.
222:
436:
380:
That's all I have to say for now. It's a better article than I expected from so complex a topic. --
455:
267:
106:
50:
8:
432:
227:
Alright, this is my first peer review, so don't complain about it. :p A couple of points
210:
179:
344:
270:
link in the introduction really stands out. Perhaps it'll be better to just remove it?
413:
381:
361:
321:
287:
248:
30:
144:
447:
431:
Is there only the
Collier-Hoeffler model and must one party be always the state?
247:, seems to be the very recipe for anarchy! Indeed, this is no encyclopedia. ;) --
409:
206:
175:
99:
475:
202:
466:
148:
56:
sympathetic to how difficult it is to research an article like this.
31:
454:
the C-H framework. While I've been expecting a need for
308:I'll experiment and see how it looks staggered. -
472:Consolidation of states within Somalia (1998–2006)
147:as such, then it might be because of the lack of
408:No problem, it was my pleasure. Thanks for not
274:someone else take up the invitation. -
14:
18:Knowledge:WikiProject Military history
343:Actually, the bibliography was added
102:from no perspective in particular.
27:
340:so this shouldn't be hard to fix.
28:
502:
396:Thank you for your comments. -
201:Sounds good. I mostly stick to
174:Research, research, research.
13:
1:
441:09:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
423:03:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
404:23:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
391:23:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
371:03:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
356:23:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
331:03:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
316:23:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
297:03:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
282:23:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
258:03:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
239:23:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
215:15:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
197:09:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
184:04:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
163:09:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
136:09:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
117:09:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
91:09:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
70:09:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
46:02:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
7:
489:02:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
458:, it may be worth creating
10:
507:
481:Thanks for the comment. -
245:Knowledge:Ignore all rules
348:make that a priority. -
465:The Geneva Convention
460:Collier-Hoeffler Model
456:greed versus grievance
268:greed versus grievance
107:greed versus grievance
498:
145:Roman civil wars
506:
505:
501:
500:
499:
497:
496:
495:
448:ethnic conflict
421:
389:
369:
329:
295:
256:
225:
53:
35:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
504:
494:
493:
492:
491:
479:
463:
433:Wandalstouring
428:
427:
426:
425:
417:
385:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
365:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
325:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
291:
263:
262:
261:
260:
252:
224:
221:
220:
219:
218:
217:
168:
167:
166:
165:
140:
139:
138:
121:
120:
119:
95:
94:
93:
75:
74:
73:
72:
52:
49:
34:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
503:
490:
487:
484:
480:
477:
473:
468:
464:
461:
457:
453:
449:
444:
443:
442:
438:
434:
430:
429:
424:
420:
419:contributions
415:
411:
407:
406:
405:
402:
399:
395:
394:
393:
392:
388:
387:contributions
383:
372:
368:
367:contributions
363:
359:
358:
357:
354:
351:
346:
342:
341:
338:
332:
328:
327:contributions
323:
319:
318:
317:
314:
311:
307:
306:
304:
298:
294:
293:contributions
289:
285:
284:
283:
280:
277:
272:
271:
269:
265:
264:
259:
255:
254:contributions
250:
246:
242:
241:
240:
237:
234:
230:
229:
228:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
199:
198:
195:
192:
188:
187:
186:
185:
181:
177:
172:
171:points are.
164:
161:
158:
153:
152:
150:
146:
141:
137:
134:
131:
126:
125:
122:
118:
115:
112:
108:
104:
103:
101:
96:
92:
89:
86:
81:
80:
77:
76:
71:
68:
65:
61:
60:
59:
58:
57:
48:
47:
44:
41:
33:
23:
19:
476:James Fearon
451:
414:Patar knight
382:Patar knight
379:
362:Patar knight
322:Patar knight
288:Patar knight
249:Patar knight
226:
223:Patar knight
173:
169:
54:
36:
467:Protocol II
149:Nationalism
22:Peer review
207:Randomran
176:Randomran
51:Randomran
32:Civil war
320:'Kay. --
20: |
452:through
100:WP:NPOV
483:Banyan
410:biting
398:Banyan
350:Banyan
345:before
310:Banyan
276:Banyan
233:Banyan
191:Banyan
157:Banyan
130:Banyan
111:Banyan
85:Banyan
64:Banyan
40:Banyan
203:WP:VG
16:<
486:Tree
437:talk
412:. --
401:Tree
353:Tree
313:Tree
279:Tree
266:The
236:Tree
211:talk
194:Tree
180:talk
160:Tree
133:Tree
114:Tree
88:Tree
67:Tree
43:Tree
416:- /
384:- /
364:- /
324:- /
290:- /
251:- /
151:.)
439:)
213:)
182:)
435:(
209:(
178:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.